Leading scientist / climate change denier was paid by energy companies

[WHAMPOM]

Let history be your guide: researchers funded by Tobacco interests could not find a definite link between smoking and cancer. And here we go again.

 

[fskimospy]

Let history be your guide: researchers funded by Tobacco interests could not find a definite link between smoking and cancer. And here we go again.

Don't you understand? Government funded a lot of the research into the links between smoking and disease as part of it's agenda to control more of the economy. So really, tobacco companies funding research into denying the link and the government trying to accurately describe reality were the same.

The parallels between tobacco science and climate science are so obvious it is painful. I guess it just goes to show that people never learn.

 

[fskimospy]

Jasper Kirkby said something no one wanted to hear.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684


Thankfully he received funding for CLOUD over a decade later and his pioneering work has opened up new levels of understanding as to how GCRs affect cloud formation.

The dubious nature of the story aside, it's interesting that you left out that research into the issue shows that he was wrong, haha. Cosmic rays appear to play a trivial at best role in climate change.

 

[shira]

]I have no idea whether those are as reliable[/B]. What does their research show, is it reliable? That isn't my argument. My argument is attack the research based on the research. Does this high priest's research produce anything worth discussing? Or is it crap? If it is crap then attack it based on it being crap.

You have no idea?

It is extremely well known that in the years leading up to required health warnings on tobacco products, research funded by the tobacco industry consistently found smoking to have no health risks.

Why would anyone expect anything else when billions upon billions of profits (and billions upon billions of lawsuit losses) were at stake if it were determined that smoking was extremely dangerous to health?

But where's the equivalent "self interest" for governmental agencies funding basic research? What was in it for the NSF to prove or disprove the dangers of tobacco? What's in it for the NSF to prove or disprove climate change?

The answer is: On the one side there's a huge vested interest in pushing a particular viewpoint. And on the other side there's no vested interest at all.

You say you want "research to attack research." But the fact is that you and the rest of the far right absolutely do NOT want "research on research." Because if that's the criterion, why do you reject the existence of overwhelming research results on the pro-climate change side?

 

[IGBT]

..and the eco-KOOKS on the other side of the table are using "garbage in garbage out" rigged computer models to swindle and defraud the tax payer to get grants and public funding so they can study nothing..endlessly.

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The dubious nature of the story aside, it's interesting that you left out that research into the issue shows that he was wrong, haha. Cosmic rays appear to play a trivial at best role in climate change.

On what basis do you call this story "dubious". Link? Or just your gut feeling?

 

[Paul98]

The problem for the deniers is that the science doesn't back their position.

 

[Genx87]

You have no idea?

It is extremely well known that in the years leading up to required health warnings on tobacco products, research funded by the tobacco industry consistently found smoking to have no health risks.

Why would anyone expect anything else when billions upon billions of profits (and billions upon billions of lawsuit losses) were at stake if it were determined that smoking was extremely dangerous to health?

But where's the equivalent "self interest" for governmental agencies funding basic research? What was in it for the NSF to prove or disprove the dangers of tobacco? What's in it for the NSF to prove or disprove climate change?

The answer is: On the one side there's a huge vested interest in pushing a particular viewpoint. And on the other side there's no vested interest at all.

You say you want "research to attack research." But the fact is that you and the rest of the far right absolutely do NOT want "research on research." Because if that's the criterion, why do you reject the existence of overwhelming research results on the pro-climate change side?

Oh gee I knew it was only a matter of time until I got lumped in with the far right that denies the climate is changing at all.

 

[fskimospy]

On what basis do you call this story "dubious". Link? Or just your gut feeling?

I call unsourced editorial pieces in right wing papers written by people working for climate denial organizations dubious because, well, isn't it obvious?

You might be content to accept unsourced accusations by biased actors uncritically, but I am not.

also, if you're looking for someone persecuted by CERN for holding unorthodox views you should probably try to find someone who isn't currently being funded by CERN to explore those views. They are doing a terrible job of conspiring to silence dissent, haha.

 

[shira]

Oh gee I knew it was only a matter of time until I got lumped in with the far right that denies the climate is changing at all.

Way to evade the argument.

When presented with evidence of how huge vested interest has historically produced fake science, you ignore it.

When you say you want "research on research," it's pointed out to you that there's overwhelming research on research in support of climate change. But you ignore the response.

Well played.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I call unsourced editorial pieces in right wing papers written by people working for climate denial organizations dubious because, well, isn't it obvious?

You might be content to accept unsourced accusations by biased actors uncritically, but I am not.

also, if you're looking for someone persecuted by CERN for holding unorthodox views you should probably try to find someone who isn't currently being funded by CERN to explore those views. They are doing a terrible job of conspiring to silence dissent, haha.

Gut feeling it is.

 

[fskimospy]

Gut feeling it is.

Lol.

This is why you're so easily duped.

 

[Genx87]

Way to evade the argument.

When presented with evidence of how huge vested interest has historically produced fake science, you ignore it.

When you say you want "research on research," it's pointed out to you that there's overwhelming research on research in support of climate change. But you ignore the response.

Well played.

I ignored the argument because it is a trog trap. I cant argue for a group of people I don't represent. What is the problem with criticizing the research based on the research and not on where the funding originates? Your tobacco example. Was it discredited because of the funding? Or because the research was faulty?

 

[Atreus21]

From David Mulberry of WattsUpWithThat:

It will no doubt astound many readers to learn that there are more than 26,500 American environmental groups. They collected total revenues of more than $81 billion from 2000 to 2012, according to Giving USA Institute, with only a small part of that coming from membership dues and individual contributions.
“Cracking Big Green” examined the Internal Revenue Service Form 990 reports of non-profit organizations. Driessen and Arnold discovered that, among the 2012 incomes of better-known environmental groups, the Sierra Club took in $97,757,678 and its Foundation took in $47,163,599. The Environmental Defense Fund listed $111,915,138 in earnings, the Natural Resources Defense Council took in $98,701,707 and the National Audubon Society took in $96,206,883. These four groups accounted for more than $353 million in one year.

That pays for a lot of lobbying at the state and federal level. It pays for a lot of propaganda that the Earth needs saving because of global warming or climate change. Now add in Greenpeace USA at $32,791,149, the Greenpeace Fund at $12,878,777; the National Wildlife Federation at $84,725,518; the National Parks Conservation Association at $25,782,975; and The Wilderness Society at $24,862,909. Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection took in $19,150,215. That’s a lot of money to protect something that cannot be “protected”, but small in comparison to other Green organizations.

 

[Jaskalas]

The problem for the deniers is that the science doesn't back their position.

There are many people who hold many different positions.

Some people don't believe CO2 does anything. Others, like myself, wish to argue the degree of its impact. I find myself spurred on by the shoddy campaigning and propaganda held by the media and high figures of the other side.

In 2000, after a relatively snowless decade, snow was a thing of the past.
In 2005, after a brief spurt of hurricane activity, hurricanes were due to global warming.
In 2011, after a strong spring of tornado outbreaks, they tried to pin that on global warming.
Permanent El Ninos... etc.

There are truckloads of blatant lies that chase today's weather and uses CO2 as an excuse. Then the weather changes and the excuse changes with it - to encompass all weather, all climate, all the time. It's that propaganda which angers people and makes us demand trial and tribulation for proof of the whole gambit of claims and theories.

Your "side" has taken sound science and oversold it with a pack of lies.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here's short TED that Jasper Kirkby put together regarding clouds and GCRs for those who may be interested.

http://ed.ted.com/lessons/cloudy-climate-change-how-clouds-affect-earth-s-temperature-jasper-kirkby

 

[Atreus21]

There are many people who hold many different positions.

Some people don't believe CO2 does anything. Others, like myself, wish to argue the degree of its impact. I find myself spurred on by the shoddy campaigning and propaganda held by the media and high figures of the other side.

In 2000, after a relatively snowless decade, snow was a thing of the past.
In 2005, after a brief spurt of hurricane activity, hurricanes were due to global warming.
In 2011, after a strong spring of tornado outbreaks, they tried to pin that on global warming.
Permanent El Ninos... etc.

There are truckloads of blatant lies that chase today's weather and uses CO2 as an excuse. Then the weather changes and the excuse changes with it - to encompass all weather, all climate, all the time. It's that propaganda which angers people and makes us demand trial and tribulation for proof of the whole gambit of claims and theories.

Your "side" has taken sound science and oversold it with a pack of lies.

Honestly, that's why I'm still tongue in cheek too. Regardless of the merits of the science done, this has been packaged with all the urgency and arrogance of many causes that turned out in the end to be false.

I'm no scientist. I have much respect for and deference to the profession, and I don't like conspiratorial accusations that they're in cahoots pursuing some nefarious end. But I don't like treating them as gods either (the way some treat Neil Degrasse Tyson, and the way Richard Dawkins thinks of himself), and my suspicion is aroused when issues like this are pushed with such urgency.

And it's really troubling when I see videos like the "No Pressure" ad from 2010.

 

[DrPizza]

With the launch of the DSCVR satellite, on its way to L1, I think the science will be even more settled as it is now. The DSCVR satellite will be able to measure the amount of light that's re-radiated from the Earth from the sunny side. In essence, it will be able to measure the rate the Earth is receiving energy from the sun, and the rate it's losing energy, and calculate from the difference the degree of warming on the Earth. The mission was originally mothballed by Dubya.

 

[DCal430]

Please don't call this man a scientist, he is a paid shill for big corporation.

 

[IGBT]

With the launch of the DSCVR satellite, on its way to L1, I think the science will be even more settled as it is now. The DSCVR satellite will be able to measure the amount of light that's re-radiated from the Earth from the sunny side. In essence, it will be able to measure the rate the Earth is receiving energy from the sun, and the rate it's losing energy, and calculate from the difference the degree of warming on the Earth. The mission was originally mothballed by Dubya.

..it will be more of the same. the eco-KOOKS will use fraud and rigged data to support the eco-KOOK agenda. Their play book is political alarmist mass hysteria masquerading as "research".

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

With the launch of the DSCVR satellite, on its way to L1, I think the science will be even more settled as it is now. The DSCVR satellite will be able to measure the amount of light that's re-radiated from the Earth from the sunny side. In essence, it will be able to measure the rate the Earth is receiving energy from the sun, and the rate it's losing energy, and calculate from the difference the degree of warming on the Earth. The mission was originally mothballed by Dubya.

And a good thing too! Otherwise it would have been on the Colombia when it exploded in 2003.

 

[dank69]

..it will be more of the same. the eco-KOOKS will use fraud and rigged data to support the eco-KOOK agenda. Their play book is political alarmist mass hysteria masquerading as "research".

Idiots like you made it more difficult to get lead out of gasoline.

 

[Jaskalas]

..it will be more of the same. the eco-KOOKS will use fraud and rigged data to support the eco-KOOK agenda. Their play book is political alarmist mass hysteria masquerading as "research".

As long as they do not privately control the data, and allow open review of their work where others can repeat the outcome, there's no room for that sort of... kookery.

I welcome DSCVR to provide more information on the subject.

 

[Jaskalas]

And a good thing too! Otherwise it would have been on the Colombia when it exploded in 2003.

.... A satellite to be launched into space... would have been on-board a space shuttle during reentry? I'm having trouble following your logic there.

 

[sphenodont]

Idiots like you made it more difficult to get lead out of gasoline.

If it's good enough for the paint chips they ate as children....